Where is the Outrage?

Hypocrisy and distortion are passing currents under the name of relgion- Mahatma Gandhi

In light of the massive demonstrations that have broken out across the Muslim world over 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that were first published in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten in September and reprinted in European media and New Zealand in the past week, perhaps it is finally time to ask the Muslim world, where is the outrage?

Yes, the Muslim world is capable of such condemnation regarding political cartoons, but why have they not condemned Islamic terror groups with the same fervor.

In Turkey, a Catholic priest has been shot dead over this incident and the Danish embassy in Lebanon has been set on fire. Yet Islamic terrorists continue to kill innocent Iraqis, Afghans, Americans...and yes Jews among others, and the Muslim world remains silent. Where is the outrage?

Schoolchildren are murdered in Beslan, and the Muslim world is silent. But if a Danish paper publishes a cartoon of the Prophet, all hell breaks loose.

In an editorial today, the Syrian state-run daily Al-Thawra stated, "It is unjustifiable under any kind of personal freedoms to allow a person or a group to insult the beliefs of millions of Muslims." Yet every day, murder in the name of Allah is not only condoned, it is encouraged.

Until the Muslim world can respond to murder with the same outrage; I can only say, shame on you.


Oh and how about Egypt’s refusal to accept search and rescue aid from Israel. Because lets be honest, better a dead Egyptian then an Egyptian saved by a Jew.

Hamas in Charge

"In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women." -Tony Montana

It is no surprise that most pundits’ response to Hamas’ recent electoral victory has been one of fear, revulsion and cynicism. And it is even less surprising that the majority of the reactions tend to lash out at the Bush Administration in the process. Yet most of the pundits fail to recognize the long term positive benefits this election will have on the War on Terror, as well as the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

To be sure, the electoral success of a violent and radical group like Hamas calls into question the very idea that peace can be brokered between the two peoples. It also calls into question the Bush Administration’s promotion of democracy in a region where the U.S. is considered “the Great Satan.”

A look deeper, however, shows that these concerns are relevant only in the short run. Hamas can no longer hide behind a Fatah-run Palestinian Authority. They are the Palestinian Authority. They have inherited the burden of power. AS such they really have just two basic options. They can either A.) acknowledge the existence of Israel, renounce the use of terror, and continue to receive tax receipts from the Israeli government, as well as foreign aid from other Western governments; or B.) Continue to wage war on Israel, bankrupt the PA within a month and invite the IDF to ransack Gaza and the West Bank.

If Hamas chooses option A, it is further proof that democratically elected governments (even if they’re battle hardened Islamist terrorists) tend to be more moderate and less violent then autocratic ones. If Hamas chooses option B, peace will have to wait, but it will only have to wait until the Palestinian people get fed up with a government that is broke, isolated, and can’t protect the security of their own people. It likely won’t last long.

Many critics have stated that it is hypocritical of the Bush administration to withhold aid to Hamas. Bush called for democracy, and now he doesn’t want to work with a democratically elected government. What these critics miss, however, is that aid from the U.S. is a privilege, not a right. The U.S. attaches conditions to most of the billions they send to Israel. A quick example: every dollar the Jews spend on settlements, is a dollar less they receive from us. Furthermore, it would be even more hypocritical to deal with a terrorist group while we continue to fight the Global War on Terror.

The U.S. response aside, the proverbial ball is in Hamas’ court. It’s their move. They won the election, they get to form the government, and in due time, they will have to decide between option A or B. Such is the burden of power. In either case, they will have to answer to the Palestinian people. Such is the burden of power in a democracy.

The Last Best Hope

The Democratic Party, like Marv Albert, seems to enjoy being tied up and whipped. How else to explain their tendency to nominate Massachusetts liberals. all hope is not lost, however. Their is one man today that could rise as the savior of his party. and when I say "savior", I mean I could actually consider voting for him....

Senator Evan Bayh's commencement address to the University of Virginia School of Law Class of 2005-
mms://law11.law.virginia.edu/news/2004_05/bayh.wmv

"America needs more unity, less division, and [an understanding of what] too many of our political leaders today do not want us to understand—that even with all of our superficial differences, the American people have more that unites us than divides us, a single nation with a common heritage forged on a common bond with a common destiny, and it’s about time that we began behaving that way,”- Evan Bayh

The Roots of Wahhabism

"You keep what you kill. It's the Necromonger way."--- Lord Marshal

The 18th century was a time of great renewal and reform in Islam. In 1000 years of almost uninterrupted expansion, Islam had developed practices and customs native to their converts but not to their Prophet. These foreign practices, combined with the ebb of Islamic expansion inspired a generation of reformers. Many of these reformers believed that Islam had deteriorated from the faith that the prophet Muhammad had founded in the seventh century. One of these movements, known as Wahhabism, was largely influenced by an earlier fundamentalist school of thought known as Hanbalism. The respective movements were distinct from each in many ways, yet, the two schools have much in common. Not only are the primary tenets of Wahhabism are deeply rooted in Hanbali theology, but the reason in which Wahhabism emerged were the same that had concerned Hanbali theorists 400 years before.
Wahhabism was founded in the 18th century in the province of Najd in what is now Saudi Arabia. The fundamentalist Sunni movement originated in the teachings of its’ founder Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1791). Like many of his Hanbali predecessors, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab called for a renewal of Islamic society through greater adherence to monotheism (tawhid), and stressed the importance of the Qur’an and hadith as guides in Islamic practice. Although it was a fundamentalist movement, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab rejected past interpretations of scripture and Islamic law in favor of ijtihad (the individual interpretation of Islamic law). The continuance of ijtihad was also central to Hanbali jurisprudence. Like Wahhabism, Hanbalism combined great rigidity in principle (source of law) with great flexibility of application (interpretation).
Wahhabi theology (and much of Hanbali theology as well) was largely a response to the adoption of newer Islamic customs and beliefs. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab believed that Islam as it was practiced in the Ottoman Empire and by the Bedouin tribes of Arabia had been corrupted by these practices. The worship of saints, the divinity of Muhammad, and a great deal of Sufi mysticism was considered by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab to be idolatry. The true Islam, according to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was that which was practiced by first generation of believers (al-salaf). By adopting these practices, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab felt that Muslims were returning to jahilyah (the state of ignorance prior to Islam). Similarly, the prominent Hanbali jurist, Ibn Taymiyyia (1263-1328), wrote extensively of the insidious foreign influences that had defiled Islam after the Mongol invasions of the Middle East. He denounced Muslims who had adopted Christian ways and decried the veneration of Jerusalem due to its’ Judaic roots.
The primary focus of Wahhabi theology was the principle of tawhid or “the oneness of God.” During 18th century, the veneration of saints, including pilgrimage and prayer rites at their tombs had become widespread. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab taught that these practices constituted shirk (polytheism), and that all polytheists were kufir (unbelievers). In his famous treatise, “Kitab al-Tawhid”, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab wrote, “We must find out what true Islam is: it is above all a rejection of all gods except God, a refusal to allow others to share in that worship which is due to God alone. Shirk is evil, no matter what the object, whether it be ‘king of prophet, or saint or tree or tomb.” Yet according to this strict definition of polytheism many Muslims were considered unbelievers by Wahhabists. Yet this narrow approach in defining who is actually Muslim is rooted in Hanbali theology. Like Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Ibn Taymiyya argued that any ruler who does not apply Islamic law in its’ entirety is an apostate. Indeed, much of Ibn Taymiyya’s writing attempts to justify holy war against the Mongol state despite the fact that they were nominally Islamic.
Hanbali theology also influenced Wahhabism in it’s denunciation of Sufi mysticism. The opposition of the Hanbali school to certain Sufi practices developed as Sufism’s geographical spread led to the adoption of un-Islamic practices into the devotional practices of certain orders.
In addition to a strict interpretation of monotheism, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab taught that the Qur’an and hadith were the only infallible and authoritative sources of scripture. In fact, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab based all of his teachings on these two sources. The importance of this tenet is such that famed Islamic scholar Hamid Algar noted, “the whole purpose of Wahhabism [is] to dismantle the complex and intricate structures of law, theology and mysticism, not to mention religious practice, that had grown up since the completion of Qur’anic revelation, and to find a way back to the twin sources of Islam, to the Qur’an and the Sunna.” In this respect Wahhabism was quite rigid. Only these two sources were considered authoritative.
This belief is entirely consistent with the Hanbali school of Islamic law. Hanbali tradition considered the Qur’an and the Sunna to be the first and primary sources of law, followed by legal opinions of Muhhamad’s Companions, so long as they did not contradict the Qur’an or the Sunna.
Although both Hanbali and Wahhabi theology take a fundamental stance on what is Islamic law, both movements allowed great flexibility in how to interpret those laws. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab challenged the idea of taqlid, in which ijtihad (individual interpretation) was no longer permitted. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab wrote that, “at the day of Judgment, it will not be enough to plead, ‘I heard people saying something, and I said it too’.” Ibn Abd al-Wahhab believed that knowledge of the truth could only be determined through ijtihad. Only by continual analysis of holy scripture could muslim jurists find truth. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab believed that taqlid served to prevent the pursuit of knowledge, writing “the key of knowledge is questions.” Hanbali jurists consistently taught that although Shari’a was divinely inspired it was not a fixed, rigid code. Hanbali jurist Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya stated that whatever interpretation from which the greatest good would flow was in accordance with the law, even if it had not been indicated by the prophet (maslahah). Islamic scholar Marshall Hogdson notes that, “ijtihad inquiry remained alive among the Hanbalis; each major teacher felt free to start afresh, according to the needs of his own time for reform in a puritan direction.” According to Hanbali jurisprudence, “the task of ijtihad, of deciding what conduced to human welfare, could never cease.”
Although the Wahhabi reform movement was distinctive from Hanbali theology and jurisprudence in many ways, it is clear that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s teachings were based largely on Hanbali traditions. The two fundamentalist schools of Islamic theology both sought to cleanse Islam of the impurities which had infected it since the time of the Salafis. With a rigid conception of tawhid, both movements continue to influence how Sunni Muslims see differing sects of Islam today. The Wahhabi and Hanbali adherence to the Qu’ran and hadith likewise have influenced the significance of shari’a in the daily life of Muslims. Lastly the respective movement’s support of ijtihad continues to affect how Shar’ia is interpreted and reinterpreted by Sunni scholars. Wahhabism was a distinct movement which was influenced by many schools of Islamic thought. But no school played a larger role in the foundation of Wahhabism then that of the Hanbalis.

To the Class of 2005

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Our Nation has always derived its Power and Prosperity directly from the American people. The talents and ambitions of our citizenry drive this country today, just has they have always done. If America is the world’s only superpower, it is because the American people made it so.
But today, the world is changed. Globalization, the internet, outsourcing; every day we are confronted by new challenges and greater competition. What is increasingly clear is that America will remain Powerful and Prosperous only if we can continue to tap into the talents of our youth. In other words, its up to You.
Everywhere we turn these days it seems people are questioning whether the American spirit has been lost. There is a belief among some that the so-called “Greatest Generation” has already made its’ mark on America, that our youth today are not made of the same metal that they were in the past.
But looking out among the class of 2005, it is increasingly clear to me that this is not the case. America has never had a more talented group of men and women as we do today. Throughout our history, our greatest generation has always been our next generation.
Although our founding fathers laid out a grand design for our nation, it has taken many years to actually fulfill the promises so eloquently stated by our Founding Fathers. Each new generation has added to the legacy of the one before, and in so doing has earned the right to be called the Greatest Generation.
But there is a difference between having talented citizens, and using that talent to make our country great. America has always gotten the most out of its’ people, and I’ll tell you why.
Because our Republic was founded on 4 universal ideals that allows every American the opportunity to make the most of their life. These ideals promote opportunity, foster ambition, and encourage all of us, to live our lives with passion.
They are the pillars upon which our Democracy was built. Together they form the character of the United States of America. These 4 beliefs are not unique to Americans, but they have been embodied by every generation. And if we are to succeed in the future, you must embody them as well.
First and foremost is the ideal of individual Equality.
To have dreams, and more importantly the opportunity to chase those dreams, we must first live in a nation that acknowledges the right of every individual to be treated as an equal and not to be consigned to some station in life based on the circumstances of one’s birth.
We call this ideal “equal treatment before the law.” It is the belief that we should be judged on our merits, and our merits alone.
Our nation was founded on this ideal. Our Constitution was written to give “liberty and justice for all.” America cannot exist for long if we ever abandon that goal. In fact our failure to heed it in the past has been the cause of war and social strife the likes of which this republic has never seen. It's torn us apart and has nearly destroyed all we built.
This future of this ideal depends on you. Never accept that your goals are unattainable because of your age, race, or gender. And when you are entrusted with the responsibilities of leadership, you must embody the hopes of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who hoped that we would judged others “the content of their character” and not “the color of their skin.”
The second ideal that is crucial to this nation is that of Integrity.
It IS “the content of your character.” Integrity is doing the right thing. Doing the right thing and knowing that you did it for the right reasons.
Integrity is the substance that gives meaning to our ideals. We can talk about the importance of individual equality all day long, but without integrity, equality is nothing more then a pretty word.
In today’s world, keeping your honor intact is not easy. We are all confronted with chances to take the easy way out, all we have to do is tell a little lie, or break a small promise. But the temptation to lie, only cheats yourself in the end. All of your goals, all of your dreams, if they are achieved without honor and integrity, are meaningless.
But even more so, you must embody this idea because we need leaders with integrity. ENRON, Adelphia, Tyco, These businesses collapsed because their leaders were dishonest. Hold on to your honor, keep your word, and people will invest in your future.
The third Pillar of this Republic is our belief in Capitalism. We are a capitalistic society. And we are dedicated to the principle of individual merit and the premise that individuals should be rewarded economically for their individual efforts.
Your future success will be determined by your ability to innovate and create new ideas and no economic system encourages creativity more then Capitalism.
This reminds me of a story that Ronald Reagan used to tell about a friend of his, an eminent scholar who was fluent in Russian. This man was on a trip to Moscow, and in the cab, driving to the airport -- had a young cab driver there -- got into conversation with him. The young man was getting educated -- going to school, but driving a cab to make that possible. And the scholar said, ``Well, what are your plans -- what do you intend to do?'' And the young man said: ``I haven't made up my mind yet.'' Well, by coincidence, when he got to Moscow and got in a cab there, he had a young cab driver. And speaking Russian he got into a conversation with him, and found out he, too, was going to school, as well as working. And he said: ``Well, what do you intend to be?'' And the young man said: ``they haven't told me yet.''
In that one anecdote, it is clear why capitalism defeated communism; when people are allowed the opportunity to pursue their interests, they will always be more productive then those who don’t have that choice.
Capitalist economies succeed because they realize there is no greater commodity than human passion and ambition.
Your commitment to this ideal will ensure that the American dream remains true in spirit and in practice.
The last ideal I will talk about today is our belief in Freedom.
There is no ideal that has meant more to the success of this country then our belief in freedom. Our government was founded on the revolutionary idea that it derives its authority from the consent of the people. It is the belief that humanity is endowed with rights that are inalienable.
Freedom has always existed as the beating heart of this great nation.
Throughout our history, men and women have sacrificed their lives for the freedom that we enjoy to this day.
In fact, we have come to the realization that freedom is sufficiently important that we will even die so that others around the globe might be free.
Although many very successful men and women share these ideals, their embodiment will not ensure you success in your chosen career. It won’t guarantee that you will be a good businessman, or teacher, or god forbid, a politician. But it will ensure you have character. By honoring equality, it will guarantee you a dignity that bigots will never know. By valuing integrity, your word will trusted, and your character admired. By embracing Capitalism, you will guarantee that hard work and ambition will always be rewarded. And lastly, by promoting freedom, together we can guarantee that the rights of man are respected and protected.
These values are indeed the pillars of American prosperity. And although we must continue to embody these ideals in our own lives, we must never forget that equality, integrity, opportunity, and liberty are values that collectively made this nation great. Your graduation today proves you are talented and that your futures are bright. Prove you have character, and I trust that you will rightly inherit the title of those who have come before you; the Greatest Generation.

The Runaway Bride

"I grad-e-ated in the 6th grade. Only took me three years!" --Jethro Clampett


For all the absurdity of the Jennifer Wilbanks story, I couldn't help but think, "only in Duluth Georgia." When you combine a 32 year-old bride, and 600 wedding guests this far south of the Mason Dixon line, you could produce enough pressure to power a freight train. That said, the media’s portrayal of this sad…okay, pathetic episode is just another example of how the South is constantly portrayed as a backwoods twilight zone. This story is classically Southern but its just another example of the mainstream media's (which is comprised mainly of Yankees and self-hating Southerners) condescending attitude towards the South.

Why is it classically Southern? Because Yankees don’t throw debutante balls for their daughters. When a Southern woman tells her friends, "My daughter came out last weekend", it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

This story is classically Southern because Northern co-eds don’t pack up and leave school if they don’t get a bid to Kappa Kappa Gamma. When I was a freshman in college, I remember watching a girl and her father quietly pack a U-Haul on Bid-Day. I couldn’t help but think what my father’s reaction would be if I called him up that morning and told him I needed to drop out of school because I didn’t get into a good Frat (alas, the efficacy of disciplining your children with a belt buckle is an altogether different subject).

Weddings, like Deb-Balls and sororities, take on a greater amount of significance the further south one travels (and the higher one climbs the social ladder). I have no doubts that women in the North get cold feet too, but they don’t kidnap themselves.

This is also an example of condescension towards the South. Although interesting, Adrea Peyser’s column yesterday in the New York Post couldn’t help insinuating that most Southerners have trouble keeping their teeth. I realize she lived in the South for a while, but with an attitude like hers, its not surprising she had to "escape." It’s amazing how unwelcome people feel when they treat their neighbors like morons.

A sad but true statement is that most Americans have no idea what the South is like. Why else do you think a guy like Howard Dean would say the things he says with a straight face? Here is a guy who was smart enough to get through Medical school, and yet still refers to an entire region of the country like he would a mischievous cousin with Downs Syndrome.

In closing though, it’s hard to make excuses for Ms. Wilbanks, her fiancé, and the South in general. When Jesse Jackson complains about the negative image of African American men, I roll my eyes and look at the number of violent crimes committed by that group. In the same vein, when Southerners like myself complain that the media makes us look like retards, I have to turn on the TV to listen to Wilbanks’ fiancé brag that she is still a virgin. If we Southerners want to improve our image, we need to muzzle idiots like that.

To Believe or Not to Believe: Part I

The only thing we Romans don't have a god for is premature ejaculation. But I hear that's coming quickly.--- Comicus

Religious faith, as a rule, requires a degree of irrationality. Faith is by definition a belief that cannot be proven with mere facts. In light of recent events, however, I have come to believe that some faiths are more irrational then others. Here are a few examples:

Scientology- People who actually follow Scientology should be embarrassed. Rather then actually describe their beliefs for you, I’ll let L. Ron Hubbard do it for me. Here is a snippet of his writing:
“The head of the Galactic Confederation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet -- 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H Bomb on the principal volcanoes (Incident 2) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic Area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged." His name was Xenu. He used renegades.”
…..okeedokee there Tiger. I think we can move on now.

Hinduism- I normally have a lot of respect for polytheistic views. Maybe it’s because I think gods that have specialized powers are cool, or maybe I just respect beliefs that attribute human-like traits to their “Higher Powers.” Relating to Zeus’ marital troubles is much easier then relating to a God who sacrifices his own son. As a Christian, I have a ton of respect for Jesus. But I still ask myself, if god is omnipotent why did he undergo crucifiction in order to forgive our sins? Why didn't he just wave his hand and fogive us? seems a lot less painful.

But Hindus takes their polytheism little to far. First of all they venerate cows. Having owned cows before, I can’t see anything sacred about them. What do they do that is so holy? Is it their ability to chew cud or their ability to poop? In either case, not very omnipotent. The kicker though is their belief in reincarnation and Nirvana. Humans are forced to relive their lives until they finally get it right, and their reward is to ascend into….Nothingness. Think Social Security on a cosmic level. Although I have nothing against "nothingness" it isn't much of a payoff if you ask me. I’m holding out for a little more…like eternal bliss…or 40 virgins.

Satan Worship- Nothingness is not much of a reward in my opinion; but reigning in hell with Satan is not an improvement. I wouldn’t give these people such a hard time, except for the commonly known fact that Satan loses. Read the last book in the bible. It doesn’t go well for Satan; he gets thrown into a pit for eternity. These guys are the LA Clippers fans of religion. You have to admire their nuts, but not very rational. You also have to question the intelligence of someone who puts their faith in a "god" who obviously doesn't care about them. If what we know about Satan is true, then he is not the type of guy that keeps his word, or sticks his neck out for the underlings. If you are going to pray to someone, pray to someone that is actually reliable. Someone who wont sell you out, or betray you to eternal dammnation the minute it suits them.

Next: Part II- Rastafarianism, Any Religion That Outlaws Pork, and Atheism

JurisImprudence Part II: Filibustering the Constitution

"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, two men a law firm, and three or more a Congress" -- John Adams

Over the past twenty years the confirmation process of federal judges has slowly broken down. Attempts at confirming judges have increasingly assumed a partisan nature, and an unprecedented level of obstruction. The intense scrutiny of a nominee’s personal and professional background, the legitimacy of confirming them on the basis of “ideological litmus tests,” and the questionable constitutionality of certain obstructionist tactics employed by the Senate, have all contributed to what many consider a full blown crisis. As the situation stands, Senate Republicans have threatened to change Senate rules that would restrict the use of the filibuster, the Democratic party’s most effective weapon in blocking nominees. Unfortunately for an overworked and strained Judiciary, Democrats have responded by threatening to shut down the Senate. In 2002, the American Bar Association specifically blamed the Senate Judiciary Committee as a “cause of blockage in the confirmation process.”[1]
Although dubbed the “nuclear option” by some left leaning pundits, history and logic side with the GOP. The filibuster that was used unsuccessfully by Strom Thurmond to block civil rights legislation was not nearly as powerful a weapon as it has become. The modern filibuster is much more powerful than its historical predecessor because it is invisible. Current Senate rules do not require any senator to actually hold the floor to filibuster, which although it spares CSPAN from airing 24 hours of Ted Kennedy reading from a phone book, it empowers a minority to block whatever it wishes without penalty. Today a minority of 41 senators can simply notify the Senate leadership of its intent to filibuster, and fly back to Massachusetts in the same day. Other Senate business goes on, but a vote on a particular issue--a nomination--cannot be brought to a vote.
Although it would be a tretch to call this unconstitutional, it is clear that the Senate has surpassed the role our founding fathers envisioned.

First, current rules are suspect on the grounds that they infringe on the President’s power to nominate judges. The Framer’s were clear that the President should have the sole power to nominate judges. This is evident in the Constitution where it reads, the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other [Principal] Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for.”[2] The Senate’s ability of “advice and consent” clearly means they have the power to vote for confirmation. Although the Constitution does not say only a simple majority is sufficient, it is clearly implied. Where the Framers intended a two-thirds majority, they specified it; as in requiring a two-thirds majority to convict in an impeachment trial, expel a member, overcome a Presidential veto, approve a treaty, or propose a Constitutional Amendment. Current Senate rules regarding filibusters render this meaningless.
In addition to infringing on the Executive’s power, the Framers would have been opposed current rules on the grounds that it leads to a greater degree of Senatorial influence on this power. Federalist #76 states, “one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.”[3] The Framers were careful to protect the nomination power from any collective group. They believed, “[e]very mere council of appointment, however constituted, will be a conclave, in which cabal and intrigue will have their full scope.”[4]
The Framers also explained when and to what effect the Senate should use its’ power to confirm:
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.[5]

Nowhere in this clause, is the rejection of nominees based on their political persuasion mentioned. This check on the President’s power of nomination existed only to ensure he did not abuse it by nominating unqualified cronies. This notwithstanding, the Framers clearly did not envision the current level of obstructionism displayed by the Senate. The writers of the Federalist papers predicted, “[i]t is also not very probable that his [the President] nomination would often be overruled.”[6]
The Framers clearly intended that the President should have the power of nomination. By requiring the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate, the Framers checked this power, in the hopes that it would be applied in preventing the nomination of unfit candidates. Expanding this role by requiring a de-facto two-thirds majority to confirm nominees clearly exceeds what was intended to be the Senate’s proper role in this matter.
It is also clear, especially given the current difficulties in confirming judges, that current rules that require more votes needed to confirm a judge would unduly increase the Senate’s role in the judicial nominating process. By requiring more Senators to confirm a nominee, the judicial philosophy of a judge must be palatable to more Senators. This has a disastrous effect. Judges on lower courts are currently pressured to reach politically neutral decisions if they wish to advance their careers. The importance of applying law based on its’ adherence to the Constitution is increasingly diminished. The Framers took great pains to prevent this by writing:
where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.[7]

Judges should make decisions based on the will of the Constitution, not the Senate. Current Senate rules create an indirect, but nonetheless significant influence to do otherwise. Jurists know that any controversial decision they make could prevent the advance of their career.
In addition to infringing on the President’s power and unduly expanding the power vested in the Senate, these rules are punitive because they threatens the overall independence of the Judiciary. The Framers were greatly concerned with protecting the independence of the judiciary from the other branches of government. In The Federalist # 80, Hamilton quotes Montesquieu when he writes, “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”[8]
Under current rule, the Senate has a much greater influence over how judicial nominees think. This risks turning the judiciary into another legislative branch. The Senate should not have a greater ability to confirm judges that are politically “sympathetic”, rather then judges who apply the law. The influence of politics in the application of law is exactly what the Framers sought to avoid.



[1] Todd F. Gaziano, A Diminished Judiciary: The Causes and Effects of the Sustained High Vacancy Rates in the Federal Courts: Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee - Subcommittee on the Constitution, October 10, 2002
[2] The United States Constitution, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
[3] THE FEDERALIST No.76
[4] THE FEDERALIST No.77
[5] THE FEDERALIST No.76
[6] THE FEDERALIST No.76
[7] THE FEDERALIST No.80
[8] THE FEDERALIST No.80

Blue Dog v. Yellow Dog

Courtesy of The Drudge Report:

Dem Centrists Seek 'Political Civil War' With Liberals...

The battle begins for the soul of the Democratic Party. How competitive the Dems will be in 06' and 08' will largley depend on how this plays out.

My prediction: Dean and the left will win this fight, then barring a meltdown in Iraq or self destruction among the Republicans, they will get creamed again in 06'.

Evan Bayh may not make excite the liberal base, but unlike Dean and the MoveOn crowd, he can attract moderate voters. Will the Left get the message? Probably not until they kick get their asses kicked one more time.

Regardless, nothing is more fun to watch then a panel of out-of-touch Democrats debate why they just can't seem to win in Middle America. They always seem to come to the consensus that its' not their support for issues like partial birth abortion that does them in, it's that they haven't done a good enough job explaining why partial birth abortion is good for them.

good luck Evan

Jurisimprudence Part I: Scalia Sets the Record Straight

"I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them." --Judge Smails

Although I am ambivilant about Capitol Punishment, I have always been opposed to subjecting minors to the death penalty. Its not an issue I'm passionate about; the plight of Lee Malvo doesn't move me to tears nearly as much as the plight of the innocent 10 year-old boy he nearly killed. I just feel that most minors are not able to reason as well as adults, and thus should not be treated as such. Yet the Supreme Court's recent decision in Roper v. Simmons, declaring this practice unconstitutional is egregious. By citing world opinion and international treaties that have yet to be ratified, the Court revealed just how lost they have become.

In the Federalist Paper No. 78, the Framers clearly enumerated upon the power granted to the Judiciary:
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning"
Simply put, the Federal Judiciary was given the task of interpreting the COnstitution. Period. We don't call it Constituional Law for nothing.

Ironically when a Court decides to look outside the Constitution, they are willfully acting outside the Constitution. The Framers warned us that, "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

As far as I have read, the Constitution says nothing about prohibting minors from recieving the death penalty. By interpreting international treaties in lue of the one document in which they are empowered to do so, the Court increasingly renders our "limited Constitution" limitless, not to mention meaningless. The Roper decision was the right one, but it should be made by the people, not the Court.

Recently Justice Scalia gave a speech in Washington DC in which he makes this case much better then I could ever hope to do....


The following is a transcript of Justice Antonin Scalia's speech on "Constitutional Interpretation" delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on March 14, 2005:

Justice Scalia:

Thank you very much Mr. Hamilton. It’s a pizzazzy topic: Constitutional Interpretation. It is however an important one. I was vividly reminded how important it was last week when The Court came out with a controversial decision in the Roper Case. And I watched one television commentary on the case in which the host had one person defending the opinion on the ground that people should not be subjected to capital punishment for crimes they commit when they are younger than eighteen. And the other person attacked the opinion on the ground that a jury should be able to decide that a person, despite the fact he was under eighteen, given the crime, given the person involved, should be subjected to capital punishment. And it struck me how irrelevant it was, how much the point had been missed. The question wasn’t whether the call was right or wrong. The important question was who should make the call. And that is essentially what I am addressing today.

I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody: judges, professors, lawyers; who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. I’m not a strict constructionist, despite the introduction. I don’t like the term “strict construction”. I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description “strict”. I do believe however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.

This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I’m asked when I’ve given a talk like this, question from the back of the room: “Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalists?” As though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people. “When did you first start eating human flesh?”

Although it is a minority view now, the reality is that not very long ago, originalism was orthodoxy. Everybody, at least purported to be an originalists. If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn’t think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted.

Or consider the opinions of John Marshall in the Federal Bank Case, where he says, we must not, we must always remember it is a constitution we are expounding. And since it’s a constitution, he says, you have to give its provisions expansive meaning so that they will accommodate events that you do not know of which will happen in the future.

Well, if it is a constitution that changes, you wouldn’t have to give it an expansive meaning. You can give it whatever meaning you want and when future necessity arises, you simply change the meaning. But anyway, that is no longer the orthodoxy.

Oh, one other example about how not just the judges and scholars believed in originalism, but even the American people. Consider the Nineteenth Amendment, which is the amendment that gave women the vote. It was adopted by the American people in 1920. Why did we adopt a constitutional amendment for that purpose? The Equal Protection Clause existed in 1920; it was adopted right after the Civil War. And you know that if that issue of the franchise for women came up today, we would not have to have a constitutional amendment. Someone would come to the Supreme Court and say, “Your Honors, in a democracy, what could be a greater denial of equal protection than denial of the franchise?” And the Court would say, “Yes! Even though it never meant it before, the Equal Protection Clause means that women have to have the vote.” But that’s not how the American people thought in 1920. In 1920, they looked at the Equal Protection Clause and said, “What does it mean?” Well, it clearly doesn’t mean that you can’t discriminate in the franchise. Not only on the basis of sex, but on the basis of property ownership, on the basis of literacy. None of that is unconstitutional. And therefore, since it wasn’t unconstitutional, and we wanted it to be, we did things the good-old-fashioned way and adopted an amendment.

Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last fifty years or so, prior to the advent of the “Living Constitution”, judges did their distortions the good-old-fashioned way, the honest way, they lied about it. They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such.

It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution. And the judge can simply say, “Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.” We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes. I have grammar school students come into the court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: “The Constitution is a living document.” You know, it morphs.

Well, let me first tell you how we got to the “Living Constitution.” You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted. For example, the First Amendment, which forbids Congress to abridge the freedom of speech. What does the freedom of speech mean? Well, it clearly did not mean that Congress, or government could not impose any restrictions upon speech. Libel laws for example, were clearly Constitutional. Nobody thought the First Amendment was carte-blanche to libel someone. But in the famous case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said, “But the First Amendment does prevent you from suing for libel if you are a public figure and if the libel was not malicious.” That is, the person, a member of the press or otherwise, thought that what the person said was true. Well, that had never been the law. I mean, it might be a good law. And some States could amend their libel law.

Could we stop the cameras? I thought I announced a couple of shots at the beginning was fine, but click, click, click. Thank you.

It’s one thing for States to amend it’s libel law and say, “We think that public figures shouldn’t be able to sue.” That’s fine. But the courts have said that the First Amendment, which never meant this before, now means that if you are a public figure, that you can’t sue for libel unless it’s intentional, malicious. So that’s one way to do it.

Another example is: the Constitution guarantees the right to be represented by counsel; that never meant the State had to pay for your counsel. But you can reinterpret it to mean that.

That was step one. Step two, I mean, that will only get you so far. There is no text in the Constitution that you could reinterpret to create a right to abortion, for example. So you need something else. The something else is called the doctrine of “Substantive Due Process”. Only lawyers can walk around talking about substantive process, in as much as it’s a contradiction in terms. If you referred to substantive process or procedural substance at a cocktail party, people would look at you funny. But, lawyers talk this way all the time.

What substantive due process is, is quite simple, the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee. But the Court said, and this goes way back, in the 1920s at least, in fact the first case to do it was Dred Scott. But it became more popular in the 1920s. The Court said: there are some liberties that are so important, that no process will suffice to take them away. Hence, substantive due process.

Now, what liberties are they? The Court will tell you. Be patient. When the doctrine of substantive due process was initially announced, it was limited in this way: the Court said it embraces only those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people.

Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last twenty years, we have found to be covered by Due Process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for two hundred years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for two hundred years.

So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text, and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process. What are the arguments usually made in favor of the Living Constitution? As the name of it suggests, it is a very attractive philosophy, and it’s hard to talk people out of it: the notion that the Constitution grows. The major argument is the Constitution is a living organism, it has to grow with the society that it governs or it will become brittle and snap.

This is the equivalent of, an anthropomorphism equivalent to what you hear from your stock broker, when he tells you that the stock market is resting for an assault on the eleven-hundred level. The stock market panting at some base camp. The stock market is not a mountain climber and the Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake, it’s a legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things, and it doesn’t say other things.

And if you think that the aficionados of the Living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea: persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea: persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion: create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea, and enact it. You want the opposite, persuade them the other way. That’s flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce: rigidity.

Abortion, for example, is offstage, it is off the democratic stage, it is no use debating it, it is unconstitutional. I mean prohibiting it is unconstitutional. I mean it’s no use debating it anymore. Now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, don’t like it because it provides flexibility. That’s not the name of the game.

Some people also seem to like it because they think it’s a good liberal thing. That somehow this is a conservative/liberal battle. And conservatives like the old-fashioned originalist Constitution and liberals ought to like the Living Constitution. That’s not true either. The dividing line between those who believe in the Living Constitution and those who don’t is not the dividing line between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives are willing to grow the Constitution to cover their favorite causes just as liberals are. And the best example of that is two cases we announced some years ago on the same day, the same morning. One case was Romer v. Colorado, in which the people of Colorado had enacted an amendment to the State Constitution by plebiscite, which said that neither the State, nor any subdivision of the State would add to the protected status’s against which private individuals cannot discriminate. The usual ones are: race, religion, age, sex, disability and so forth. Would not add sexual preference. Somebody thought that was a terrible idea, and since it was a terrible idea, it must be unconstitutional. Brought a lawsuit, it came to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said, “Yes, it is unconstitutional.” On the basis of… I don’t know. The Sexual Preference Clause of the Bill of Rights, presumably. And the liberals loved it; and the conservatives gnashed their teeth.

The very next case we announced is a case called BMW v. Bush. Not the Bush you think; this is another Bush. Mr. Bush had bought a BMW, which is a car supposedly, advertised at least as having a superb finish, baked seven times in ovens deep in the Alps, by dwarfs. And his BMW apparently had gotten scratched on the way over. They did not send it back to the Alps, they took a can of spray-paint and fixed it. And he found out about this and was furious, and he brought a lawsuit. He got his compensatory damages, a couple of hundred dollars, the difference between a car with a better paint job and a worse paint job. Plus, two million dollars against BMW for punitive damages for being a bad actor, which is absurd of course, so it must be unconstitutional. BMW appealed to my court, and my court said, “Yes, it’s unconstitutional.” In violation of, I assume, the Excessive Damages Clause of the Bill of Rights. And if excessive punitive damages are unconstitutional, why aren’t excessive compensatory damages unconstitutional? So you have a federal question when ever you get a judgment in a civil case. Well, that one the conservatives liked, because conservatives don’t like punitive damages, and the liberals gnashed their teeth.

I dissented in both cases. Because, I say, “A pox on both their houses.” It has nothing to do with what your policy preferences are; it has to do with what you think the Constitution is.

Some people are in favor of the Living Constitution, because they think it always leads to greater freedom. There’s just nothing to loose. The evolving Constitution will always provide greater and greater freedom, more and more rights. Why would you think that? It’s a two way street. And indeed, under the aegis of the Living Constitution, some freedoms have been taken away.

Recently, last term, we reversed a fifteen year-old decision of the Court, which had held that the Confrontation Clause, which couldn’t be clearer, it says, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witness against him. But, a Living Constitution Court held that all that was necessary to comply with the Confrontation Clause was that the hearsay evidence which is introduced, hearsay evidence means you can’t cross examine the person who said it because he’s not in the court, the hearsay evidence has to bear indicium of reliability. I’m happy to say that we reversed it last term, with the votes of the two originalists on the court. And the opinion said that the only indicium of reliability that the Confrontation Clause acknowledges is confrontation. You bring the witness in to testify and to be cross examined. That’s just one example, there are others, of eliminating liberties.

So, I think another example is the right to jury trial. In a series of cases, the Court had seemingly acknowledged that you didn’t have to have trial by jury of the facts that increase your sentence. You can make the increased sentence a sentencing factor. You get thirty years for burglary, but if the burglary is committed with a gun, as a sentencing factor, the judge can give you another ten years, and the judge will decide whether you used a gun. And he will decide it, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether it’s more likely than not. Well, we held recently, I’m happy to say, that this violates the right to a trial by jury.

The Living Constitution would not have produced that result; The Living Constitution, like the legislatures that enacted these laws would have allowed sentencing factors to be determined by the judge. Because all the Living Constitution assures you is that what will happen is what the majority want to happen. And that’s not the purpose of Constitutional guarantees.

Well, I’ve talked about some of the false virtues of the Living Constitution, let me tell you what I consider its principle vices are. Surely the greatest, you should always begin with principle, its greatest vice is its illegitimacy. The only reason federal courts sit in judgment of the constitutionality of federal legislation is not because they are explicitly authorized to do so in the Constitution, some modern constitutions give the constitutional court explicit authority to review German legislation or French legislation for its constitutionality. Our Constitution doesn’t say anything like that. But John Marshall says in Marbury v. Madison: look, this is lawyers work. What you have here is an apparent conflict between the Constitution and the statute. And all the time, lawyers and judges have to reconcile these conflicts; they try to read the two to comport with each other. If they can’t, it’s judges work to decide which ones prevail. When there are two statutes, the more recent one prevails. It implicitly repeals the older one. But when the Constitution is at issue, the Constitution prevails because it is a superstatute. I mean, that’s what Marshall says, its judges work.

If you believe however, that the Constitution is not a legal text, like the texts involved when judges reconcile or decide which of two statutes prevail, if you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year. If you think that it is meant to reflect, as some of the Supreme Court cases say, particularly those involving the Eighth Amendment, if you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society, if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I’m afraid to ask.

If that is what you think the Constitution is, the Marbury v. Madison is wrong. It shouldn’t be up to the judges, it should be up to the legislature. We should have a system like the English. Whatever the legislature thinks is constitutional is constitutional. They know the evolving standards of American society, I don’t. So in principle, it’s incompatible with the legal regime that America has established.

Secondly, and this is the killer argument, I mean, it’s the best debaters argument. They say in politics, you can’t beat somebody with nobody, it’s the same thing with principles of legal interpretation. If you don’t believe in originalism, then you need some other principle of interpretation. Being a non-originalist is not enough. You see, I have my rules that confine me. I know what I’m looking for. When I find it, the original meaning of the Constitution, I am handcuffed. If I believe that the First Amendment meant when it was adopted that you are entitled to burn the American flag, I have to come out that way, even though I don’t like to come out that way. When I find that the original meaning of the jury trial guarantee is that any additional time you spend in prison which depends upon a fact, must depend upon a fact found by a jury, once I find that’s what the jury trial guarantee means, I am handcuffed. Though I’m a law and order type, I can not do all the mean conservative things I would like to do to this society. You got me.

Now, if you’re not going to control your judges that way, what other criterion are you going to place before them? What is the criterion that governs the living constitutional judge? What can you possibly use, besides original meaning? Think about that. Natural law? We all agree on that, don’t we? The philosophy of John Rawls? That’s easy. There really is nothing else. You either tell your judges, “Look, this is a law, like all laws, give it the meaning it had when it was adopted.” Or, you tell your judges, “Govern us. You tell us whether people under eighteen, who committed their crimes when they were under eighteen, should be executed. You tell us whether there ought to be an unlimited right to abortion or a partial right to abortion. You make these decisions for us.”

I have put this question, you know I speak at law schools with some frequency just to make trouble, and I put this question to the faculty all the time, or incite the students to ask their living constitutional professors. “OK professor, you are not an originalist, what is your criterion?” There is none other.

And finally, this is what I will conclude with, although it is not on a happy note, the worse thing about the Living Constitution is that it will destroy the Constitution. You heard in the introduction that I was confirmed, close to nineteen years ago now, by a vote of ninety-eight to nothing. The two missing were Barry Goldwater and Jake Garn, so make it a hundred. I was known at that time to be, in my political and social views, fairly conservative. But still, I was known to be a good lawyer, an honest man, somebody who could read a text and give it its fair meaning, had judicial impartiality and so forth. And so I was unanimously confirmed.

Today, barely twenty years later, it is difficult to get someone confirmed to the Court of Appeals. What has happened? The American people have figured out what is going on. If we are selecting lawyers, if we are selecting people to read a text and give it the fair meaning it had when it was adopted, yes, the most important thing to do is to get a good lawyer. If on the other hand, we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience, a new constitution, with all sorts of new values to govern our society, then we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look principally for people who agree with us, the majority, as to whether there ought to be this right, that right, and the other right. We want to pick people that would write the new constitution that we would want.

And that is why you hear in the discourse on this subject, people talking about moderate, we want moderate judges. What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Half way between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean? There is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of the text. Would you ask a lawyer, “Draw me a moderate contract?” The only way the word has any meaning is if you are looking for someone to write a law, to write a constitution, rather than to interpret one. The moderate judge is the one who will devise the new constitution that most people would approve of. So for example, we had a suicide case some terms ago, and the Court refused to hold that there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide. We said, “We’re not yet ready to say that. Stay tuned, in a few years, the time may come, but we’re not yet ready.” And that was a moderate decision, because I think most people would not want a… If we had gone, looked into that and created a national right to assisted suicide that would have been an immoderate and extremist decision.

I think the very terminology suggests where we have arrived: at the point of selecting people to write a constitution, rather than people to give us the fair meaning of one that has been democratically adopted. And when that happens, when the Senate interrogates nominees to the Supreme Court, or to the lower courts, you know, “Judge so and so, do you think there is a right to this in the Constitution? You don’t?! Well my constituents’ think there ought to be, and I’m not going to appoint to the court someone who is not going to find that.” When we are in that mode, you realize, we have rendered the Constitution useless, because the Constitution will mean what the majority wants it to mean. The senators are representing the majority. And they will be selecting justices who will devise a constitution that the majority wants.

And that of course, deprives the Constitution of its principle utility. The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take that are favored by the majority is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for two-hundred years.

To come back to the beginning, this is new. Fifty years old or so, the Living Constitution stuff. We have not yet seen what the end of the road is. I think we are beginning to see. And what it is should really be troublesome to Americans who care about a Constitution that can provide protections against majoritarian rule. Thank you.

Know Thyself Part II: Defining the Right

“Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.” --Walter


Given the divisive nature of our current political landscape, perhaps it is necessary to define the various groups that make up the right. Although “neoconservative” has become a pejorative term, most Americans probably couldn’t tell you what they really believe. Anyone who votes Republican today is categorized by the media as the “right”, with no attempt to distinguish various ideologies. What the media misses is that the Pat Buchanan’s of the right have almost nothing in common with the Bill Kristol’s…other then their agreement that John Kerry was a joke.

Classical Conservative (“PaleoCons”) These guys are the “old school” Republicans. They are the modern version of the “Know-Nothings.” Somewhat provincial in nature, these guys are not fans of George W. Bush. They hate deficits, government programs, Jews, and idealistic foreign policies. In that order. It took Pearl Harbor to get these guys on board for WW2. This group has been shrinking steadily since then. Pat Buchanan is the most prominent Paleocon. The only nice thing I can say about these guys is that still value common sense. The editor of Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative describes their views here: http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html

Christian Conservatives- This classifies a lot of folks in the South today. Yes, a lot of them still believe in Creationism, and although this does weaken their credibility a bit, you can’t argue with faith. As such these guys are mostly concerned with social issues like abortion and gay marriage. And most support an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. The fact that many of them view this as a chance to finally convert those damn heathens is somewhat scary. The only way the Democrats will win in the South again is if they suddenly vanish to heaven in “the Rapture.”

Libertarians- All these people really want is to be left alone. Protect me from hijacked jets, but don’t tell me how to live my life. They actually make a lot of sense. That Jesse Ventura is their front man may help their street cred, but it hurts everywhere else. As much as I respect the right to bear arms, until the red coats return, the Montana militia folks need to get a grip. Liberty is a good thing. Anarchy…not so much.

Neoconservative- If you read the Washington Post or the New York Times you would think “neocon”s eat babies in their free time. To be called a “neocon” today is akin to being called a “neonazi.”

What most of the public doesn’t get is the liberal nature of their beliefs.
The original "neoconservatives" like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were anti-Communist socialists strongly supportive of the civil rights movement, integration, and Martin Luther King. Neoconservatives were the ideological offspring of JFK. It wasn’t until the rise of "anti-Americanism" in the counterculture of the 1960s that this group began to associate themselves with conservatives.

According to Irving Kristol a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality." The primary tenet of this idealistic ideology is to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad.

These ideas are rooted in liberal tradition. True conservatives act like dead-beat dads when it comes to nation building. They will change their names to avoid getting involved.

The coalition that currently comprises the Republican party is as diverse a group as one could imagine. Unlike the Democratic Party of late, it is truly a “big tent.” Were Bill Clinton in office today, I highly doubt that his foreign policy would differ greatly from George W. Bush. Yet, because the public faces of “neoconservatism” are so divisive in nature, the ideology has been branded as “right wing.” The continued defection of former Democrats like myself proves otherwise

For another perspective, NRO Editor Jonah Goldberg has recently published two essays regarding the evolution of conservatism at:

http://www.opinionduel.com/
and
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200503300801.asp

Or read Christopher Hitchens at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2115170/

In Memoriam: Johnnie Lee Cochran Jr.

The man was good. So good that God is dumbfounded he just agreed to let Johnnie into heaven. St. Peter never had a chance. It doesn't matter that Johnnie was mostly full of shit. And it doesn't matter that OJ was not the only murderer that walked because of his brilliance. It only mattered that he was one likeable SOB. Whatever his politics or his effect on our legal system, he never forgot who he was, or where he came from. And those who struggled to make it out of South Central LA because of his help are testament to that fact. Johnnie represented much of what is wrong with our legal system, but his success represented much of what is right about the American dream. Johnnie was a success because he was smart, ambitious, and because he loved people. Despite his flaws, we loved him back. Rest in peace Johnnie.

In other news, Johnnie has just been hired to represent a group of Egyptian first-born males in a class-action wrongful death suit naming God as the principle defendent. Good luck God.

Know Thyself: Part I- Defining the Dems

Bart: Are we awake?
Jim: We’re not sure…are we black?
Bart: Yes we are
Jim: Then we’re awake…but we’re very confused
----Blazing Saddles

Seeing as how Howard Dean is accusing “evil” republicans of engaging in name calling, and Sen. Robert KKK Byrd is comparing Republicans to Nazis, it would seem helpful to actually define some common and not so common terms for Democrats; especially seeing as how I describe myself as a former “Blue Dog Democrat.”

Yellow Dog Democrat- This is the nickname that started it all for the Dems. As with most colorful nicknames it evolved in the South. The term came about during the 1928 elections, when Al Smith ran for President against Herbert Hoover. During that campaign, Senator Tom Heflin, of Alabama, declined to back his fellow Democrat, Al Smith the Governor of NY. Even then southerners were distrustful of Northeastern liberals. But Reconstruction was still a bitter memory…it still is in some parts.

To make matters worse for Heflin, he decided to back Republican Herbert Hoover, who would then go on to become President. Heflin's controversial actions were considered heresy. In Alabama circa 1928, Republicans were about as attractive to voters as a chubby chick with herpes. As you can imagine, quite a large number of Alabamans vehemently disagreed with Senator Heflin's decision to cross his "Party Lines". Hence, the popular saying, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket" was born. It was adopted as the proud slogan of the staunch party loyalist. It’s modern day translation is “anybody but Bush.”

Blue Dog Democrat, is a nickname derived from "Yellow Dog Democrat". It was Former Democrat Rep. Pete Geren, of Texas, who said that the members have been "choked blue" by those extreme Democrats, from the left. The Blue Dogs were descendants of a 1950s defunct Southern Democratic group once known as the 'Boll Weevils', who played a critical role, in the early 1980s, by supporting President Ronald Reagan's tax cut plan. Later this group formed a coalition of about thirty conservative-leaning House Democrats in 1995.

The greatest Blue Dog was Charlie Wilson from East Texas. Although he played a key role in funding the Mujahideen’s resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he is probably better known for snorting coke with models in Vegas hot tubs, as well bringing belly dancers with him an official visits to Pakistan. For this alone he qualifies as one of my personal heroes. This guy got so loaded one night he hit a car on Key Bridge and did what most smart politicians would do…he fled…to Pakistan. Like “good times Charlie” most of the Blue Dogs have either retired, or been forced to resign for various reasons (like railing your intern and lying about it when she goes missing).

Green Dog Democrat- Apparently a green-dog Democrat is a cross between a yellow-dog Democrat and a blue-dog Democrat. Supposedly moderates, most Green Dogs I’ve met think Ted Kennedy is moderate. Moderately drunk perhaps.

Dixiecrat- These guys are the Roger Clintons of the Democratic Party. Officially known as the States' Rights Democratic Party; they were a short-lived splinter group of Southern Democrats who opposed racial integration. Their embarrasing stance on Civil Rights makes them like the gay uncle no one talks about at family reunions. These guys are so discredited that Republican Trent Lott tried to wish the father of the Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond, a happy birthday and he was forced to resign as Majority leader.

The death of the Deomcratic Party in the South has also meant the death of colorful nicknames for Democrats…which is unfortunate. Even relativley new terms for Republicans (ie. “NeoConservative”) have already begotten nicknames (ie. “Vulcans.”). I hope that in the near future Jeanine Garafolo, Al Franken, and Bill Maher can get together and come up with something humorous. Although he’s no Charlie Wilson, a man as colorful as Howard Dean deserves nothing less.

(Background Information Courtesy of William Safire's Safire's New Political Dictionary.
© 1993 by the Cobbett Corporation.)

Next: Part II-Defining Conservatives

Another Bullshit Alert

You gotta love Howie Dean. In a speech yesterday down at Vandy he continued his effort to win back "the solid south" for the Democratic Party. How you might ask?

According to Howie, "We [Liberals from New Hamshire] need to talk about values and not be afraid of them." Yet during his run for the Democratic nomination Howie famously lectured that "the South has to stop basing its vote on
race, God, guns and gays." Translation: Your values suck. You need to vote for Democrats cause you don't know any better.

This is the type of thinking that caused him to say,"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." Sadly Howie still thinks of the South like Hollywood tends to portray it; as a bunch of dumb backward rednecks.

Notice to Howie: you want to win the South, don't talk down to us. I don't know what ivory tower you climbed down from, but as long as you talk about to Southerners like you would talk to a child, you won't win.

Complaining yesterday that a local commercial had called him "a northeastern liberal" (which is fairly accurate), "I've been called worse things than a liberal. The reason the Republicans call names is because they have nothing to say about balancing the budget, creating jobs or doing anything about health care or education." Of course this is coming from the guy who just called all Republicans "evil". But I guess being called "a northeastern liberal" is worse then "evil".

Another Notice to Howie: you want to win the South, don't be such a whiner.


Courtesy of the Drudge Report

A Major League Pain in the Ass

Rick Vaughn: What's that shit on your chest?
Harris: Crisco, Bardol, Vagisil. Any one of them will give you another two to three inches drop on your curve ball. Of course if the umps are watching me real close I'll rub a little jalapeno up my nose, get it runnin', and if I need to load the ball up just wipe my nose. I haven't got an arm like you, kid. I have to put anything on it I can find. Someday you will too. --Major League


For at least the last decade anyone who has paid attention probably suspected that Major League Baseball had a steroid problem. Records that had not been in danger for 40 years were suddenly being eclipsed almost every year, and the players who broke them tended to be in their late 30’s, with about 30 pounds more muscle on their frame then they did in their “prime.” It hasn’t been until recently, however, that the problem has attracted attention from our leaders in D.C.

Perhaps the return of baseball inside the beltway has aroused in Congress a long dormant interest in our national pastime, or perhaps they were sick of dealing with Iraq and Social Security. This is the type of issue that politicians love to talk about. After all, what is more American then professing on national television your love of baseball? Notwithstanding those Communist bastards in Havana, baseball is truly a democratic game. Although I don’t begrudge Eli Cummings the chance to state his love of baseball on TV, I can’t help but think Congress should have a better way to spend their time. That our leaders in the House would rather look patriotic talking baseball then working to improve education or secure our borders shows that like Deion Sanders; they would rather look good and lose, then look bad and win.

At first, those who were subpoenaed were hesitant to appear. Who can blame them; the only people more vicious then Major League Baseball owners are politicians. Why? For one reason they appear to share a frightening number of characteristics with sharks: They always dress in blue or gray, they never sleep (although this is slightly germane I have personally turned on C-Span late at night and seen, congresspersons still up talking even though no one else is in the chamber.), and they both roll their eyes just before devouring their prey. Just as sharks are attracted to the smallest drop of blood; turn on a news camera and in minutes you will be surrounded by a swarm of voracious Senators. This last reason seems to be the overriding purpose for holding these hearings.

In the end, all the sluggers decided to show up (being charged with contempt can motivate even the laziest superstar), but all had different strategies for answering to the Committee. Raphael Palmiero got angry, Mark McGuire started crying and pled the 5th , and Sammy Sosa just pretended he didn’t speak English. Which as dumb as it sounds, actually worked. Congress referred all questions to his interpreter. Don’t pay attention to the fact that he gives interviews all the time, just admire the brass set of balls he must have for actually taking that route.

Although the end of this sad parade brought us no closer to revealing the truth behind the validity of the many records set over the past 8 years, it did reaffirm that Major League Baseball players are just as flawed as the average American and our politicians even more so.